Posted
by
michael
on Thursday October 21, 2004 @07:47AM
from the abbie-hoffman dept.

Anonymous Coward cuts-and-pastes: "Less than a week after a pirated version of Halo 2 began appearing on the Web, another of the year's most sought after games has been stolen. Ironically, it also happens to be a game titled after a larcenous act itself. That's right. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has become the latest victim of piracy, with illegal copies of the game, its manual, and its cover appearing on various Web sites."Update: 10/21 13:54 GMT by Z: Rockstar adds some details to what we know about the crime in a press release covered by CVG.

"Downloading, possession and distribution of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, including making the game available on the internet, is theft." Then came this warning from the company: "We take the theft of our intellectual property very seriously and we are and will continue to diligently and aggressively pursue this matter."

I take the virtual theft of guns, money, sex with hookers, cars, and other people's lives very seriously and I will continue to diligently and aggressively pursue this matter once I get my hands on the game.

Yet another news article that continues the bombardment of the uninformed public trying to change the definition of words to fit their needs.

Yet another news article that continues the bombardment of the uninformed public trying to change the definition of words to fit their needs.

Are you missing a prepositional phrase between public and trying?

s/public trying/public, by irritating marketing departments trying

However, there is no version control system for language, other than ignoring these little boys who cry 'wolf'.
Similar flatus occurs when the legal system is used for advertising puproses. See: Paris Hilton...then again, don't.

Then came this warning from the company: "We take the theft of our intellectual property very seriously and we are and will continue to diligently and aggressively pursue this matter."

Anyone wanna let Microsoft know that someone has substantively ripped off the text of their Halo 2-leak threat?
"Microsoft takes the integrity of its intellectual property extremely seriously, and we are aggressively pursuing the source of this illegal act."http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/10/14/news_61105 39.html/ [gamespot.com]

The explanation is quite straight forward. It's lawyer-speak, and you can expect to see it standardised. Not always quite this similar, but it is no coincidence (or theft of MS' threats).
*snort* Yeah, and various software algorithms are standardised and the most obvious and simple answer to a question. It doesn't keep corporations from copywriting those. Free speech is becoming less free-like-beer these days.

Hahah, the fools. I'm straight to the copyright office now to assert my rights over the boilerplate text that laywers use on their contracts and letters. Those bastards will have to pay me eveytime they say "without prejudice" now...oh the delicious, but not quite ironicness of it all.

Yet another news article that continues the bombardment of the uninformed public trying to change the definition of words to fit their needs.

And on the other side of the fence, we have the copyright violators (hmm, "pirates" is a lot less unwieldy), who continue the bombardment of the uninformed public trying to convince them that copying software is OK, because "it's not like we're actually stealing something".

Well explain to me from a business sense, how a company that puts millions of dollars into making cars, is different from a company that puts millions of dollars into making music so that everyone from their janitor to their lawyers can get a paycheck?
It's a company, it's a product. When you take their product and don't pay for it, it damages the company. Just because they can make more, or because the actual 'cost' of the raw product is low, doesn't mean that you should take it for nothing, or less than

Presenting an argument as if it were ridiculous, as a way of countering it, is a fallacy. So let's be explicit: what is your specific logical response to this argument?

OK, I'll bite.

Copying this game isn't stealing in the usual sense of the word, like taking a physical asset from the owner. But you are potentially still causing them damage. Perhaps you would not have bought the game... but you're happy to share the copy of this game with your friends, and your friends' friends, some of which might be potential customers. Suppose everyone obtained their copy from a friend instead of buying it... even though no-one actually stole anything from Rockstar, they'd get no revenue from a product they probably spent several million on to develop. Many people counter this argument with a rationalisation "Oh, I would not have bought this game anyway, it's all the others causing the damage". Well, I can certainly believe that you wouldn't buy the game for $50 when you can get it for free... which is why you are still causing damage to the company by passing the copy onwards to others, thereby convincing them not to pay money for a legit copy.

Copyright is a rather artificial construct. Why would we allow publishers control over their work, if that work could be made to benefit the whole world without any additional cost to the publisher? Answer: because it still takes money to create the work, and publishers should be able to make a profit on it. Only a communist would demand that publishers and artists work for nothing... and that is what you are demanding when you state that it is OK to copy software. That, or you think that others should pay for the content you enjoy for free...

Of course there are reasons why copying actually helps rather than hurts: people can have a free preview, it's like free advertising for the publisher, etc. etc. But if you copy something and continue to use it, I have no problems calling you a thief of the artist and of those who paid for their legitimate copy.

The fact that all these kids copy games makes me really pissed. I don't mind much when it's music.. because there's hidden benefits to the artist of sharing music (I'm a musician so I can make that statement confidently). But the gaming industry is fragile. It's like a mini hollywood, only it's value hasn't quite been realized yet.

Kids love video games. I'm an adult and I still love video games. I'm looking forward to San Andreas.. but I'll probably wait for the PC version sin

Thanks for the comments. The reason that the third option exist and is valid is simply "by default". If we start in a tabula rasa society, there is no reason why you can't copy something. The old principle of "whatever I do in my house is my business". For copying to be wrong, there must be a reason, if there aren't, it is right.

And as for the reasons, the best that the copyright advocates can come up with is that "companies have the right to profit", which is obviously baloney (even though in present-day

"Yet another news article that continues the bombardment of the uninformed public trying to change the definition of words to fit their needs"

You *DO* know the english language is almost designed to incorporate new word uses over time, or are you not a linguist and just want to continually bombarding folks with the idea that you know more than most?

Hell, most languages do this. The Hebrew language goes back into its history to find unused or underused words to represent modern tech simply to avoid using language from outside of its realm and to keep the language pure. Many others do the same.

Do you really think the general public wants a new word for copyright infringing when most will look at it as Hey Why Don't They Just Say Theft Or Piracy, Because Thats What It Is. Other than the morons that take 1984 to heart and want to shape public perception by forcing the use of word choice to promote their lifestyles:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.htm l

And you wonder why folks think RMS is a stinky hippy that wants to force everyone to his idea of society. He claims that he gives choice, all the while trying to shape the slash sheeple into his way of thinking by altering language and hopefully altering though because of it.

If we get away from thinking its theft, we can concentrate on calling it copyright infringement, which then sounds more like us v. THE MAN and thus the attitude starts to change.

I'm going to get modded to -5 for this but fuck it. You've personally derided my posts in the past for using words like theft and piracy and I'm sick of the fucking hippy element around here that can't learn to live and let live. I don't tell anyone else how they should live their lives, nor how to think, all I ask is that folks respect my personal properties which include any and all intellectual properties. I think this is all most content creators ask as well...

"That's the fundamental basis of the 'fucking hippy element'. You may have meant something else."

You know, I'd attended a dozen dead shows in my life. My mom had the hippy ideas, and a lot of my friends were hippies growing up.

This is no more the ideal of hippydom than George Bush is bombing Iraq to free people from the tyranny of Saddam.

Hippies want to rule the world. They want to force us to believe how they believe. They want nothing more than to annihilate thought different than their own. I've *NEVER* met a hippy that was representative of the ideal that wasn't 100% identical to those around him. You find this in the Republican Party these days too. People want to be led and someone is obviously doing the leading...and more than that, they want uniformity. Uniformity frees one from having to think outside the lines, man. Sure, their coloring books might not have lines, but the minute someone suggests putting them in, they are demonized.

Their society is no different than the one we live in today, and more than that, its just as damaging from a progressive standpoint.

As for evolution -- its not evolution if folks *HAVE* to shape its existence. Its one thing for ideas and constructs to show up and be accepted, its another to go out of your way to enforce the usage of it...

You *DO* know the english language is almost designed to incorporate new word uses over time, or are you not a linguist and just want to continually bombarding folks with the idea that you know more than most?

Do you really think the general public wants a new word for copyright infringing when most will look at it as Hey Why Don't They Just Say Theft Or Piracy, Because Thats What It Is. Other than the morons that take 1984 to heart and want to shape public perception by forcing the use of word choice to promote their lifestyles

I know this wasn't directed at me but I'm gonna jump in here anyway. English, like most other languages, is evolving over time as new words are introduced and others fall into disuse. Generally this is not a problem as new words are required to describe new things/concepts and older words may describe things/concepts that are no longer useful or relevant.

I agree that sometimes new meanings are attached to words that already used to mean something else. This is perfectly acceptable for most words where meaning can be derived from context. But, when we are talking about legal language, or words used in a legal context, we have to restrict ourselves to very specific definitions. "Piracy" is used to describe a specific violation (or group of violations)of the law while "theft" describes another. They are not interchangeable in the legal context. The same is true for "copyright infringement". This is a specific violation of law that is separate from both theft and piracy.

The definition of these terms aren't kept separate because there is some plot by the "man" to restrict your freedom of expression. They are kept separate in order to prevent chaos within the legal system and to maintain some sort of societal order.

If this was not the case we might see this situation:

Person 1: I want to charge that guy for "theft", and by theft I mean the guy walked on my lawn.

Oh I think Orwell is well read these days, but the current crop of kids really aren't taught to think much more than is printed on the page. This is one of the reasons we see emoticons and textual smilies because folks are not trained to even read sarcasm on the internet (my above post was meant to be read at face value as the morons won't get it otherwise). They need a wink and a nudge to get the slightest idea that it might be representing something other than what is on the page.

By me copying and downloading and then spreading their product I haven't denied them of anything.

Amazingly ignorant comment. You are denying them the profit they have a right to. No one has a right to possess a copy of the game if they have not received it through legit means. This whole theft/copyright infringment argument is tiring, because the end result is that people are breaking the law. Theft is not the wrong word to use, it's just that the definition of the word is dated. Good luck trying to bring webster's dictionary into court to try and protect yourself.

Grow up. Piracy is wrong and it does cost the industry jobs and a lot of money (although not as much as they claim).

A word of advice, steer clear of flawed statements like this. Nobody has a "right" to profit.

However, by infringing their copyrights (getting the game without paying for it), you have obtained their game _illegally_, and if you are participating in mass copyright infringement, it's a _criminal_ offence in the UK.

Theft _is_ the wrong word to use. Theft is a completely different crime from copyright infringement. You will not be prosecuted for theft. If you go to court, they won't say "theft" or "stolen" once. They'll prosecute you for "copyright infringement", and they'll use phrases like "massively infringed" and "duplicated without authorisation".

Copyright infringement is a much better phrase than "theft" or "piracy", because it also works for Free Software. Only copyright law stops people from taking free code and making it non-free. If we tried to say they "stole" our code, they'd retort "hah! how can you steal something that's free?". As you can see, "steal" is an extremely poor word choice for copyright infringement.

If you were to actually steal GTA, you'd do that by going into the shops when it is released and physically stealing the box from the shelf or the game discs from the stock drawers.

If you wouldn't have bought it, and the people who distribute it to wouldn't have bought it, then they aren't losing anything, but they are gaining publicity. To me the problem is that people are now proud of pirating software where once they at least tried to keep it on the QT.

Great - another corporations-have-a-right-to-profit thinker. Corporations don't have a right to profit; they have a right to do business but whether they make profit depends on how they do it - it's not their guaranteed right that they will! They don't have a right to any sales revenue either if people decide not to buy their products.

This whole theft/copyright infringment argument is tiring, because the end result is that people are breaking the law.

So are the corporations. Who makes non-compete agreements? Enforces illegal trade restrictions? Lies with creative accounting practices to avoid paying equal share of taxes? Is a member of a cartel, and engages in price-fixing taking customers' money by illegal means?

How many times have those corporations' actions been discussed in the news recently compared to the mp3 music "thieves" and "pirates?" How many times has Congress proposed any legislation recently to combat the situation compared to what they have proposed and enacted to combat the "pirates?"

Gimme a break - next thing you'll tell me is that corporations have a right to break the law. Because we already know they have a right to bribe the Congress to enact new ones, making common sense illegal.

Theft is not the wrong word to use, it's just that the definition of the word is dated.

OK, maybe "theft" is the right word to use. After all, corporations in the entertainment industry alone have stolen 100s of millions if not billions in U.S. dollars over time from consumers using illegal means.

Look, I am no "piracy shop" supporter, and I don't know much about the Rockstar and its products or how all this applies in this case, but, for a general statement that you are making, having a one-sided view as if corporations' "rights" to profit are being violated is very ignorant of the whole situation.

Ah, another socialist? Since when do corporations (or anybody, for that matter) have a right to profit? By copying their game, you're not denying them their right to profit. They don't have that right to begin with. OTOH, if you copy the game, and then sell your copy, and don't pay any royalties, you will be committing copyright infringement.

Once upon a time, if money didn't change hands, no infringement had occurred. That's called "Fair Use".

Are you, NEW? Those rights are enshrined in a variety of copyright legislations and international treaties. Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean that you get free reign to ignore them anymore than the fact that I disagree with the taboo against murder allows me to come over there and kill you with this shiv.

Yes, it came out in pirated form before it hit the stands, if that is what you mean. But it didn't make much difference since back then pirated software moved so slowly, since people used to have to physically get together and bring their disk drives. I remember having little parties like this with my Apple II !! Those were the days....

I used to love cracking BBC Micro games. I remember when FRAK! was released, it had some rather good (for the time) copy protection. It took me hours to crack, but eventually lady luck smiled on me and it was cracked.

I gave a copy to a friend of mine on the Monday.

On the Friday I went to see some old chums from Uni. about 150 miles away. Guess what? They had my cracked version!

And during the course of the year, every single copy of this game I cam across was my cracked version.

I later went on to develop and sell some of my own copy protection and had great fun hearing people bitch and moan about how they couldn;t crack it. Blew their mind when I told them I was the author.

But what Garcia Maruez did finally is he modified the final chapter of the book so the book in the street does not have the same ending than the published book. Quick reaction and probably a very good publicity campaign for boths, the pirate version and the published version

Well, he can do with his works as he likes, it's supposed to be a free country after all, isn't it ?

Also to say he changed it to market response would mean that everyone reading the already published book said "Ohhh ! It has a sad ending ! But we want a happy end !" and he put in a happy end after that so more people bought the book. You are just pissed of that he somewhat outsmarted the oh-so-heroic "pirates" that are for some stupid reason the great heroes over here.

In order to steal the game, you have to beat up enough cops and hookers in your town, and run over a few pedestrians on your way to work, and then you will be approached by a mysterious stranger who will send you on a mission that will result in your getting a bootleg copy of GTA:SA.

This happens with every single game that comes out. Why all of a sudden is this huge news? Back in the days of doom and quake games were pirated days and weeks before their release. Granted, lately it's been sometimes the day of or a day after the game has been released to retail that a game gets pirated, but this isn't news people. It's been happening for 10+ years. One thing that has changed, is how easy it is for people not involved in the "scene" to get these releases. Before you used to have to know the right people, nowadays all you need to do is load up the latest p2p app and anyone can find it.

This happens with every single game that comes out. Why all of a sudden is this huge news?

Probably because marketing people have figured out that only big games are news when they're pirated, so now they try and make sure everyone knows when their game is pirated, because then people will think "oh, it must be big if it was pirated before it's even on the shelves! There must be a lot of demand, it must be an awesome game!"

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the software companies made it quite easy f

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the software companies made it quite easy for a pristine copy to make its way into the hands of someone who will post it all over the place, simply for the press and to get word of mouth going by having people play it and ramp up the hype about it.

I'm not saying this is the case with GTA:SA, but this is something that's been discussed for years:

Alternately, prepare a version that almost works, but shows defects that cause unplayability, oh, about a third of the way t

If the game was about trying to reform the main character away from robbing and stealing, then it would be irony. Since there is no relative constrast between the game plot and downloading leaked copies, this cannot be irony.

However, it is already clear [...] piracy is becoming an increasingly common and serious problem for both gamers and the games industry.

I have never condemmned piracy, but "a problem for gamers" - what kind of tripe is this?

Actually, I see their point. The game publishers try to combat piracy with more draconian copy protection. This *is* a problem for gamers. The gamers who legitimately paid for their game. Not for those who download a cracked version.

Game development is a *business*. That means that they are in this *to make money*. They have employees, rent, etc.

So, if piracy costs them sales, then they have to raise the price to compensate. Or perhaps they decide NOT to make that cool new experimental game which might be a big hit or it might flop. "Let's just stick to making another FPS. Not too original, but it will sell like hotcakes."

One thing to consider, however, is how many of those pirated copies represent lost sales.

Exactly. I was being cynical in my remark, but I had considered the lost sales argument. Ultimately, however, I believe that a statistically insignicant number of sales will be "lost" due to this.

If your guess of 1/4 was correct, this would be devastating to the industry, and I don't think it to be a likely number for the PC industry let alone for the PS2 where - correct me if I'm wrong - you'd need special hardwar

And if there were slightly less expensive games and a larger variety, there would be more buyers, piracy or not. Every person who downloads before he buys, contributes to the higher quality games being produced and reduces.... I'm not arguing for or against piracy, just attempting to introduce logic. FWIW, Doom3 has its roots FIRMLY in the try before you buy arena.

I don't know about you, but I am on a limited income. I make good money, but between supporting a wife and two kids, paying off student loans, mortgates, etc., I do not find a lot of money left over for buying games.

Sooo, if a larger variety of less expensive games suddenly came out, I would not be able to sudddenly double the amount of money that I spend. People on a limited income find it difficult to spend more. People with lots of disposable income will probably buy Doom 3 if it is $

Look, I don't like the current state of copyright in this country. I also don't think that those who accessed the game initially are right. It may or may not be theft, but it is certainly immoral. It is their property, after all, and they have the right to do whatever they like with it.

As far as it being theft or not, think of it this way--if it were east Antarticans (fictional) sneaking in and taking a copy of the United States plans for a nuclear

A thieving opportunist has stolen a van of my latest publication hot off the press!
But that SPANKED-up idiot has left the rear doors open and now my, artistically violent, tastefully desctructive video game is being dropped all over the Internet.
Persue that trail of illegal copies diligently and aggressively collecting evidence as you go.
When you've followed the trail to that thieving SPANK-head, waste him.

There's nothing new here. The warez scene has been doing -1 and 0-day releases forever. I've seen -7 releases before. They're getting a bit better, and I suspect some of the biggest networks are probably paying people to do the leaks, which helps things.

This is news only because the game has been widely publicized. This happens all the time.

Look, I know a guy who's working on it, a really decent man. He has a wife, a child, and another on the way. If you copy this instead of buying it, you're contributing to putting him out of a job just when he needs one the most.

This isn't a theoretical issue. Rockstar aren't some faceless cartel. Please. Do the right thing this time.

However, it is already clear that with four of the year's top games--GTA: San Andreas, Halo 2, Doom 3, and Half-Life 2---being posted online before their official releases, piracy is becoming an increasingly common and serious problem for both gamers and the games industry.

I agree that it's a problem with piracy. It definately looks like it's becoming an increasingly problem. But it's not. Just because these four games happen to be on every geek's wishlist they get noticed. Look at how many games are pi

This question is for people who believe that music file trading increases CD sales. Ever consider that maybe releasing your software online, then crying that it has been pirated, is a fantastic and free marketing ploy? The vast majority of game players actually by their games. So when they see news like this posted on Slashdot and other sites, it's simply free advertising, and a powerful message that this game must be damn hot, so I just gotta rush out and buy it as soon as it hits the stores.

Great question there. I'm going to say that the legal side of the question is iffy-- it might be illegal yet since you didn't get it through legal distrobution methods (read: the ROM image situation; if you didn't dump it yourself, the copy is illegal).

Morally, however, I'd say it's much less grey. It's absolutely fine, in my opinion-- you did pay for it BEFORE you downloaded it, after all. They've got their money either way, so no harm was actually commited.

It most certainly is illegal, thanks to our screwy IP laws, but since you actually paid for it, it's highly questionable exactly what harm they would suffer as a result of your actions. Let me repeat that: it is illegal in any country which has signed the Berne treaty recognizing copyrights. There are damned few countries that haven't signed that treaty. If you're in an english-speaking country, you're probably covered by it, with the possible exception of Sealand.

What does the article actually say has happened? Has a copy of the game actually been stolen, or has a copy been made and put online? Since its impossible to steal immaterial things it should mean the latter, but with all the deliberate confusion of theft and copyright infringement that goes on its impossible to say.

I don't approve of piracy in and of itself - people put a lot of time and hard work into this software, and the long hours they put in are no picnic, make no mistake. If their work has produced a result that is enjoyable, I think people should pay for it. A friend of mine has Neverwinter Nights and the two expansions, but I spent $50 on the Platinum instead of $0.50 on a blank DVD, because it's worth it.

That all being said, I am glad in a way that games are getting pirated, though it's not having the effect I'd like. My roommate downloaded Doom 3 before it was released, as (according to suprnova) did several hundred thousand other people. As a direct result, we wasted at least 20 minutes playing the game (waste is right) before we decided that it was hopeless - the graphics were phenominal - not realistic, but phenominal anyway. The physics was well-done as well, and the environment felt real.

The game, however, was terrible.

If I had bought the game for anything more than $5, I would have kicked myself, and even if I had paid $5, I could have gotten a pork roast for that and had a good dinner instead. It was a complete waste of time, and as much as we tried to justify playing it, eventually we got sick and gave up.

Doom 3 lost a lot of sales to piracy, not because people weren't forced to buy it, but because people realized they didn't WANT to buy it. If I download GTA:SA and I like it, I'll get it. If I don't, I'll delete it (well, I'll burn it off then lose the DVD, which is the same thing).

Thanks to the proliferation of broadband and bittorrent, piracy has become the way we test our content first. ISOs are the new game demos, Telesyncs are the new trailers, and media, for a good portion of those so-inclined in North America, purchases have moved into the honor system - every 'ware is shareware now, and people are starting to realize that it's easier to download and try it out than to haggle with the clerk at EB when they find out the much-hyped 'game of the century' is both uninspired and pointless.

So yes, I'm glad this is released - not necessarily before the game is out, but I don't honestly think that matters, except for the 'first-day sales' figures, and those are largely unaffected anyway.

I remember a few years ago you would have NEVER heard of a pirated game make the news. And really, for all those in the know, games were routinely released in warez form weeks, sometimes months, before the actual release.

I think this is all a bunch of scare tactics by the media. Game companies know these sort of activities only have a marginal effect on their bottom lines. It's always been a constant. Hell, sometimes it's like free marketing.

Besides, most of the people who are into trading these leaked games are kids who can't afford to buy them anyways.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a good thing that games get pirated, but it's been happening since software was invented. Don't beleive the media hype, because sooner or later there's going to be a story about "The pandemic of software piracy".

Under US copyright law, it's not illegal for you to download this game. It is illegal for you to upload or transfer it to someone else. That's when you're infringing on copyrights. Yes, the publisher will lose money. Yes, their lawyers will be hopping mad. As long as you don't transfer the game to someone else, there's no crime committed. So, don't do it.

(Now, let's see if I can break my personal best for up and down mod points in the same post.)

I don't know about the financial aspect of things, but a lot of programmers worked really hard for this, and stealing the program just takes the shine out of all the work they put into it.

Unfortunately, people don't adopt a similar viewpoint with music. "What? So what if they spent 2 years making this album?! It costs $11.99!! Fsck the RIAA!!!" Hypocrisy is so sad sometimes. If you download an album, and you like it, then buy it.

I don't think that downloading music is right. It is theft. However, the RIAA is preventing the true artists from making money. Record the song, and put it on ITunes. The artist gets a huge cut.

The only thing RIAA conceivably does is to promote the musicians. But I'm sure a PR firm can do the same thing independently. This is especially true for established bands that do not need a huge corporation to take a risk on them.

Please. Lets come back to this discussion after we see how many copies of Halo 2, Half-life 2, and GTA: San Andreas are sold. I guarantee you they won't be sparing the champagne at the developer's launch parties this year.

what does that have to do with anything? just because they are going to sell a lot of copies makes it ok that their intellectual property distribution rights were violated? if someone's rich, does it make it actually okay to steal from him/her, instead of, perhaps, less morrally wrong?

Cracking ANY dongle protected program is dead simple if you can get hold of the program itself and the matching dongle.Depending on the dongle brand, there are even automated programs that can just read the data from the dongle and unwrap the program no problems.Or emulators that can "emulate" the dongle (again using data read from it)

The sooner games companies (and others) realize that all this "Copy Protection" crap is never going to work for the PC as it is today, the better.

And here we have the prime example of the honest users being shackled with burdensome copyright prevention, while dishonest users remain happily unencumbered...

So tactics like these are supposed to promote honesty and goodwill between the game makers and their patrons?

I've said it numerous times here before... I do not promote copyright infringement, but the industry really needs to just look the other way to a certain extent... there's going to be a break even point between how much they spend trying to

Agreed. Dongles do not work. Even the really expensive ones they use for CAD type tools.

Bottom line: software has to be decrypted on your own system in order to run or play. Your system cannot be trusted. There is the fundamental vulnerability. There is no way to fix this, you can simply rely on time/reward investment to discourage people from doing it. However for mass market commercial products, once a single person cracks it, it's open for everyone. All that money you blew on the dongles, sw licenses et

We hate licensing and the such, but how far away are we from USB dongles?

Not a good idea. USB devices can be easily emulated in software ( c.f. various "virtual cdrom" drives that appear as being on the USB bus ), and there is a well developed and sophisticated toolchain on nearly all platforms of note for debugging and analysing USB information flow.

Unfortunately, there is precious little other in the way of standardised ports to plug into. Some machines are even shipping without Parallel ports now, if the word I'm hearing is correct, which is a bit troublesome if you're trying, for example, to run Compumedics Profusion 2 which uses a parallel dongle.

Dongles are expensive (compared to a few cents for a CD), annoying for genuine users and easily circumvented once someone cracks the software to remove the dongle existence check. They are consquently very unusual.

The only viable copy protection is similar to that used in Quake III, where you're banned from any Internet servers if you use a duplicate key. There's no killer solution for software that doesn't require the Internet to run (even Q3 would always work in single-player mode).

But hey, look at how many people downloaded the warezed copy of Doom 3, and Activision still sold a metric shedload of CDs. I wouldn't cry too much - piracy is going to hurt the publishers of weak games worst, 'cos everyone can find out that it sucks before it goes on sale;-)

Oh come off it. The number of people who own a modchip and who go to the effort of downloading and burning a 4gb image is miniscule. It wouldn't even register as background noise it is that small.

Now there is a wider problem with piracy in the far east for example, but if it concerned games companies that much, perhaps they should start selling games in those countries at prices people can afford. Sell the game for $5. It might not be much of a profit, but it's surely more than $0 they get from the pirate

The only effective copy protection I've ever seen is to make a compelling online-only game such as Counter-Strike.

Once you have the gamers online you can weave in connections to a centralized server where you can pull all sorts of tricks to insure that they are using a CDKEY that you issued, only once, with software that matches MD5 checksums/etc.

It's still possible to crack this, but AFAIK there is no effective multiplayer counterstrike crack, and given that the game has been out as long as it has been you would figure someone would have come up with SOMETHING by now. Even if they do, Valve would just issue a systemwide patch to combat it.

Same goes with MMORPGs and XBOX live/etc.

Every other form of copy protection is a plague on gamers. Granted Counter-Strike's cd key system has its own problems, but it's not as harsh as say, disabling the use of daemon tools or requiring a dongle or whatever. I predict that when net access becomes ubiquitous enough you'll see every game/application hit the net for authorization before running, on PC or consoles. Sad but true.

I strongly agree. GTA started out on the PC, designed for the PC, and with the PC gaming audience in mind (yeah, we're mindless car thieving yobs, jump on that Daily Mirror). They got their riches through the PC, and grew through the PC. So why neglect it? Max Payne. PC. GTA 1-2, PC first. Where did your early money come from Rockstar? PC. So, once again, Why neglect us?